The group alleged the board erred when it approved the farmstand on the River Road property belonging to Hernandez, who is a member of the land use board. It also contends the board didn't make Hernandez work within the confines of the law.

On June 10, a day before the case was slated to begin trial, the board's attorney wrote a letter to Superior Court Judge John Pursel, stating the township had voided approval of the farmstand. The letter cited incomplete information and issues with lot lines on the deeds for the property.

With the approval voided, the courts closed the case.

Hernandez today called the decision a temporary setback and he is already in the process of correcting it.

"In essence, it was a technical snafu that can be easily corrected and it is our intention to fully correct it," he said.

While the lawsuit's end did not deal directly with the issues raised by Eco Action, Director Laura Oltman said it nonetheless vindicated the group's assertion that the land use board didn't do its due diligence in approving Hernandez's application.

"They passed this application without hardly any scrutiny," said Oltman, who is also Hernandez's neighbor. "This approval should never have been granted, and I'm pleased that the township has realized that."

Land use board attorney Lyn Aaroe and Mayor James Kern III did not return a message seeking comment.

According to Hernandez and Oltman, the closing of the case stemmed from deeds illegally submitted to the county clerk's office by the property's previous owner. The deeds, which changed the boundaries of the property where the proposed farmstand would be built, were invalid because they never received approval from the township.

Unaware of the issue, Hernandez said he based his permit application on the deeds recorded at the clerk's office. When the error was noticed late in 2013, Hernandez said he reverted his plan to the previous deeds.

It was discovered, however, that the farmstand was then in violation of required setbacks from neighboring properties, making the permit invalid.

"In my opinion, they were lucky with a problem with the lot line because it gave them a chance to say 'no harm, no foul,'" Oltman said of the township.

But the case's closing is likely only a temporary end to the battle surrounding the farmstand.

Eco Action's lawsuit, filed in July, raised several issues on which the group believed the board erred during the approval process. Among them was the waiving of requirements for Hernandez to show topography information and allowing him to present his own project after he had recused himself.

Additionally, the size of the farmstand has come under scrutiny.

Municipal code permits a farmstand building measuring up to 1,000 square feet. Whether the second floor counts against the size limit is at issue as the proposed stand measures 1,760 square feet when both floors are included, according to the board's meeting minutes.

"This building is a house, not a farmstand," said Oltman. "The approval grossly violated the township's ordinances specifying the size of farmstands and other accessory structures."

Hernandez countered today by saying he remains confident his application will again be approved by the board once the issues with the lot lines are corrected.

"It would be a logical conclusion that once the lot line issue is resolved, with everything else remaining unchanged, we should be able to proceed with our approval," he said.

If that is the case, Oltman said Eco Action is prepared to once again fight the approval in court. Flooding from the Pohatcong Creek and Musconetcong River has caused disaster in the township, and the farmstand as proposed could make issues even worse, she said.